Mere omission to indicate the period of attachment does not nullify the attachment and Clause (2) of Rule 57 cannot be so interpreted as to invalidate the attachment, itself.

P.K. Balsubramanyan, J. - The decree holder is the petitioner in this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holder, State Bank of Travancore obtained a decree on 18.10.1982 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,67,229.59 against the first defendant Private Limited Company and its Directors by sale of the properties and also proceeding against the Directors. On 22.12.1982 the decree holder filed an execution petition which was numbered as E.P. 6 of 1983. There were two prayers in that petition, one to appoint a Receiver for A schedule immovable properties and B Schedule movables belonging to the first defendant-Company and for sale of those properties. The Court appointed a Receiver who sold the movables. The immovable property was also sold. A partial satisfaction of the decree was recorded. While that execution petition was pending, the decree holder bank filed E.A. 108 of 1983 to attach the personal properties of defendants 6 and 8 on the ground that the properties mortgaged were not sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. On 12.4.1983 an order of attachment was made by the Executing Court and on 7.6.1983 attachment was effected. On 14.9.1983 attachment was made absolute and E.A. 108 of 1983 was closed. It was on 1.10.1985 that a modified satisfaction order was made by the executing Court which also directed that the attachment made in E.A. 108 of 1983 will continue. It did not indicate the period for which the said attachment was to continue.

2. On 3.4.1987 the decree holder filed E.P. 120 of 1987 praying for recovery of the balance mount due under the decree by sale of the properties attached in E.A. 108 of 1983. On receipt of notice of the said execution petition judgment debtors 6 to 8 whose properties were sought to be proceeded against filed petitions contending that the decree was not in conformity with Order 34, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence the decree was inexecutable, that there was no subsisting attachment over the properties and that since there was no prayer for attachment of the properties in the execution petition, the present execution petition is not maintainable.

3. The executing Court found that the decree was valid and regular and could be executed. This finding was not challenged before its on behalf of the judgment debtors at the time of hearing. Obviously therefore the first objection of the judgment debtors that the decree was not executable does not have any merit.

4. The executing Court took the view that since no period upto which the attachment was to continue was indicated in the order directing the attachment to continue while passing the order on 1.10.1985, it must be held that under Order 21, Rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure there was no subsisting attachment and consequently the prayer for recovery of amounts by sale of the properties without a prayer for attachment in that behalf was not maintainable. The executing Court proceeded to dismiss the execution petition presumably even without giving the decree holder an opportunity to amend the execution petition in view of its conclusion on the question of the subsistence of the attachment. The executing Court relied on Order 21, Rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure to come to the conclusion that there was no subsisting attachment. The order of the executing Court dismissing the execution petition is challenged in this revision by the decree holder.

5. It. was argued on behalf of the decree holder that in view of the decision of this Court in Basheer v. Madhavikutty Amnia, 1989(2) KLT 483, the order of the executing Court was unsustainable and the same had only to be set aside. At that stage counsel for the judgment debtors sought to question the correctness of that decision rendered by a learned Single Judge. It is in view of this that the Civil Revision Petition was referred to a Division Bench for being heard.

6. In Basheer v. Madhavikutty Amma the situation was more or less identical. Th